The IPKat

Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

Advertisement distributed by Swedish ISP held to be sexually discriminatory

Readers who have been following the EU copyright reform
saga may be familiar with the argumentthat
the new directive, if adopted, would make it impossible to share GIFs and memes
in Europe due to the requirements under Article 13. But can a meme be pulled
also on other grounds than what, quite scarily, copyright has been accused –
rightly so or not – of? This is indeed what happened in what frankly looks like a bizarre
decision of the Board of the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman
(the Board) a few weeks ago.

According to the Board’s decision,
the well-known Distracted Boyfriend
meme (a stock image come to fame) used for advertisement would be sexually
discriminatory and should be consequently banned.

In 2018 the Swedish internet service provider Bahnhof[which readers might recall has also been involved in several cases
relating to blocking injunctions] turned to social media in a witty move to
advertise available positions within the company. The advertisement which was
published on Facebook and Instagram comprised of two posts with the same
content. One of the posts comprised of the following text: “Looking for a new
job? Right now we are looking for sellers, an operating engineer, and a
distinguished web designer”.

The picture in the post depicts a man and a woman holding hands along a street while walking away from the camera. Another woman wearing a red dress is depicted in the foreground. The woman in red appears to pass the camera while the picture is taken. The man’s head is turned towards the woman in red, his expression is one of ‘interest’. The woman holding his hand appears upset while the man gazes at the woman in red. The word “you” is written on the man’s shirt, “your current workplace” on the woman’s left arm, and “Bahnhof” on the woman in red. The picture is reproduced below:

The claims

According to several claims advanced by consumers, the advertisement objectifies women and is thus discriminatory in its nature. In particular, it portrays women as interchangeable items and emphasizes their aesthetic appearance.

Several reports also indicate that the image itself is a well-known meme on the internet which is intended to be of a humorous nature but this would not justify the Bahnof using it as part of its marketing strategy.

Other reports also echo that the advertisement depicts stereotypical gender roles of men and women which is inferior to both genders. For example, even though a man has a partner, he can/should look for other women if they are more aesthetically appealing. It gives the impression that men can change partners in the same way that they change jobs. One upset reporter even stated that “Bahnhof could possibly not be interested of female applicants with the present advertisement”.

Bahnof’s response

In response to the negative attention, Bahnof attempted
to publicly apologize on Facebook. It stated that it was attempting to use the Distracted Boyfriend meme to visualize
the application process in a humouristic fashion. It depicts – albeit in a
sarcastic style – jealousy and longing – for something better than what the
employee currently has. The spirit is that the advertiser is an attractive workplace
that can lure you into breaking your relationship with the current employer.

The situation is exactly the same regardless of the
colours, shapes, and characteristics of the individual. Bahnhof does not read
gender roles or gender characteristics of anyone. What matters is the
competence that the individual possesses.

Furthermore, although memes can be can be – and sometimes are used – in a sexist fashion, the people portrayed in memes should not be more than representative of what they actually are. It is therefore the form and the situation that make up the meme.

The following criteria is used in order to establish
whether advertisements can be considered discriminatory on a gender basis if
they are:

1. Objectifying
advertisements: advertisements that portray individuals as sexual objects, for
example through clothes, posing and environment, in a way that can be
considered derogatory. The term “derogatory” may depend on whether the
individual has a connection the service marketed and where the advertisement
has been marketed;

2. Conventional
advertisements: advertisements portraying individuals in stereotypical gender
roles that describe or convey a derogatory image of women or men; and

3. Advertisements that are gender-discriminatory
and derogatory in any other way.

The Board then went on to state that humour, exaggeration and irony are often used in advertising and can mitigate gender-discriminatory impressions, while at the same time there is a risk that what is humourous or made fun of, is reinforced.

In light of the above and claims submitted by both the
public and Bahnof, the Board found reason to assume that the targeted group of
individuals would be familiar with the meme used in accordance with its own
interpretation of the roles of the figures in the meme.

Nonetheless, the Board considered that the woman in red –
by being in focus of the image and through the man’s appreciative reaction – is
portrayed as a sexual object. The object
of the advertisement per se is to recruit salesmen, operating engineers, and
web designers. The portrayal of the woman in red as a sexual object is
therefore unrelated to the advertisement. The Board found this impression to be
reinforced by the fact that women are assigned as representatives of
workplaces, while men – being recipients of the advertisements –are portrayed
as individuals.

Furthermore, the Board also considered the way men were
portrayed in the meme. From the way in which the man has his head turned towards
the woman in red, while walking together with his girlfriend, the image conveys
a stereotypical portrayal of men and thus also derogatory in this regard.

In light of the above, the Board found that the
advertisement was in breach of Article 4 of the ICC Marketing and Advertising
code.

Beware memes!

Advertisement distributed by Swedish ISP held to be sexually discriminatory
Reviewed by Nedim Malovic
on
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Rating: 5

The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence.

2 comments:

At first I thought, isn't this over the top? But when thinking about it I can only welcome this decision. Only because a certain behaviour is common, and we are use dto it, there is no reason to reinforce it by making use of it in an advertisment. The reasoning of the court makes sense. Well done! To a better future!

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.